Sens. Cloutier and Connor’s “No” votes: “The unions got to them”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am and is filed under First State Filth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

69 Responses to “Sens. Cloutier and Connor’s “No” votes: “The unions got to them””

1. Tyler Nixon says:
   

   Senator Venables himself called it, in a WDEL interview with Carl Kanefksy :

   “I think they made a mistake…I think labor got to them and they knew how they were gonna’ vote, before a word was said.”

   I would say that’s a pretty good on-the-record source.

   Organized labor as a special interest in this state has way too much political influence and their efforts always seem to serve their narrow interests at the expense of the the public interest.

   Times like this demonstrate how it is not that the outlived their usefulness from the days when they were looking out for workers’ rights and fair treatment, it is that they simply no longer exist in that form.

   They are self-serving, manipulative, heavy-handed, and willing to abuse the process to get whatever they can out of law and public resources. Much like the worst corporations and business interests.

   http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=765014875790

   July 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
2. jason330 says:
   

   You may be right about all of that, but doesn’t making “unions” the bogeyman take the heat off of a lot of people. People like:

   Ruth Ann Minner, John Carney, & Baker?

   July 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
3. Slaves says:
   

   Who do you think tells Minner, Carney and Baker what to do? They didn’t get that stupid on their own.

   July 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
4. Mike Matthews says:
   

   Good point, slaves.

   July 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
5. RickJ19958 says:
   

   I’m sure that was the rationale for most of the no votes. Adams wasn’t going to go against a Dem, but his non-vote at least spared him the indignity of having to take a side.

   July 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
6. Kilroy says:
   

   Tyler Nixon says:

   “Organized labor as a special interest in this state has way too much political influence and their efforts always seem to serve their narrow interests at the expense of the the public interest.”

   But why do the democrats attract most of the union voters?

   July 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
7. Rule of Hand says:
   

   Kilroy-
   Most unions are comprised of blue collar workers, who do you think the Dem’s platform speaks for…
   you think the Republicans understand those core principals?

   July 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
8. Andy says:
   

   What about the Hand of the Chamber of Commerce in all of this mess I am sure they deserve some behind the scenes credit

   July 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
9. Andy says:
   

   By the way the most powerful entity in Delaware is the Delaware State Police Look at how many seats they control in the General Assembly Look at how many high ranking State Jobs are held by retired State Troopers You don’t hear too much about them but in State Government they do no wrong

   July 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
10. DanaGarrett says:
    

    I seem to recall that it was the Chamber of commerce that had the 1st signature on the DEEDS letter opposing the eminent domain bill, and it was the chamber that opposed the min. wage bill in spite of union objection and the MW bill never got a vote. Now tell me who has more power and who was the principal mover in this affair?

    July 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
11. Mike Matthews says:
    

    Dana,

    I have no doubt the CoC was in on this mess, however that’s not the angle of this particular story. Cloutier and Connor were specifically motivated to vote no on this, my two sources say, because of pressure from the unions. That’s the angle I took.

    July 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
12. Brian McGlinchey says:
    

    Tyler -

    You know that organized labor stands for workers rights. It is our core mission, as evidenced by the fact that you recently proudly stood with us and supported our efforts to organize the Walker Transportation Plant which is a major supplier to General Motors located in New Castle.

    Our adocacy on behalf of issues that effect our members are critical now more than ever in today’s cutthroat global economy. As a result of governmental policies that allowed runaway trade, we destroyed our American manufacturing base and traded down to a lower wage service economy.

    Our support for economomic development along the Christina River with a prominent private developer is not shrouded in secrecy. By definition, a labor lobbyist is compensated to promote jobs for our members. With the prosepct of General Motors and Chrysler shutting their doors, Valero is a constant state of flux, restrictions on land use at all time high and a thirty year seismic shift, we are in the fight of our life.

    Recognizing this is a controversial issue, and coupled with the recent court decision, eminent domain has become a lightning rod. We remain committed to working with all the effected parties to ensuren an public policy is put in place that will promote responsible brownfield redevelopment and strong safeguards for citizens that may be unfairly subject to government pressure to sell or face removal from their private property.
    Best-
    Brian McGlinchey
    Legislative Chairman, AFL-CIO
    Director of Government Affairs, LIUNA

    July 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
13. liz allen says:
    

    And who controls the unions? Who keeps some of these dead beat dem’s in office? There is enough blame to go round. Unless we replace these deadbeats with candidates who will “sign off” on our issues, and vow to take their oath to protect and serve the citizens, we are in doomed in corporate Delaware.

    Go to the polls on election day, and see who the “union workers” are supporting! Nothing wrong with unions, I support union workers, its the bosses taking their lead from the corporations and their political bosses. Carney/Minner joined at the hip! Carper, Biden, Castle and their corporate sponsors. Its a political shell game.

    July 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
14. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    Brian, I consider you a great friend. But you should stick to things like organizing Walker, rather than engineering your political influence to thwart public interest and civil rights legislation.

    At least you are straightforward about how organized labor serves its interests by any means available and to the fullest extend possible. I just don’t share with you the essential ethic that permits this, at least as it regards my belief of what public service means.

    July 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
15. Mike Matthews says:
    

    Brian,

    The simple fact is those who decided to carry the governor’s water are the ones who are working in secrecy; the ones who refuse to present themselves for questioning by people interested in knowing why they would switch their yes vote for the bill for a no vote refusing to override this governor’s veto. As a Communications major in college one of the first things we learned is that those who don’t talk are, quite often, the guilty ones. Well, Carney is guilty on this one. As are Cloutier, Amick, Connor, Blevins, Henry, Marshall, McDowell, DeLuca, and Cook.

    Your attempts at rationalizing this are weak. I am a strong supporter of the concept of unions; placing the power in the peoples’ hands. But the way you all act in Legislative Hall is not in your members’ interest when it comes to bills like this. The only thing you’re protecting is your hegemonic hold and trance-like power over the individuals who give you the power to do so.

    Go to your membership. Pose the question as it’s meant to be posed: Do you support the government having the right to take and demolish your property for non-public-use purposes?

    Brian, I assure you the answer you get will be just like the answer thousands of Delawareans have provided on outlets like this, Delaware Online, and at gatherings around the state.

    SB 245 was a good bill. You know it. But you saw the dollar signs and the self-preservation instinct of your dinosaur-ridden organization told you otherwise.

    July 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
16. liz allen says:
    

    mike: you left out Margaret Rose Henry. I just love these rationalizations. Hell no, they would never take the issue to the membership and have them vote….they vote in their stead….sounds like the current Gang of 4 at IPOD.

    July 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
17. Mike Matthews says:
    

    Henry’s there. How could I leave her out?!

    She serves the governor and Brian McGlinchey and not her constituents, remember?

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
18. anonamous says:
    

    Dear Mr. Brian McGlinchey,

    I know that labor unions used to stand for the rights of workers, as my father was in a union for many years.

    However, it appears to me that the unions have all become very self serving and overly concerned with wages. Somewhat understandable with the corrupt level of corporate exec. wages we see, but still has gone overboard.

    Explain to us the good things you have done to fulfill the social contract in recent years? Cut the rhetoric out and give us the document cases of the good that has or has not been done. I fear the Unions have lost their way in recent decades.

    Thank you in advance.

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
19. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “But you should stick to things like organizing Walker, rather than engineering your political influence to thwart public interest and civil rights legislation.”

    Tyler, is this true for the Chamber as well?

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
20. DanaGarrett says:
    

    Mike,

    I heard it was DiPinto who influenced Cloutier. He was there in her office not too long before the session opened yesterday. I heard nothing about Cook.

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
21. Bullshit says:
    

    “We will take shit from other people so long as our workers get jobs out of it. We don’t care about working people, we care about OUR people. We own this governor and we’re going to own the next one, too. We will do what we want and you will like it.”

    There, you shitbag, I revised your statement for accuracy. Rot in hell.

    “With the prosepct of General Motors and Chrysler shutting their doors, Valero is a constant state of flux, restrictions on land use at all time high and a thirty year seismic shift, we are in the fight of our life.”

    I’m sure Ed Osborne will sleep well tonight knowing you scumbags saved your overpriced jobs at his expense because you managed to turn everything else you’ve touched to shit and are scraping for the last vestiges of your worthless existence.

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
22. DanaGarrett says:
    

    ” it appears to me that the unions have all become very self serving and overly concerned with wages.”

    Many selves in self don’t you think when you are talking about millions of workers.

    Consider this, construction workers don’t work year round. Good wages become important when you are working for the times when you are not.

    “Explain to us the good things you have done to fulfill the social contract in recent years?”

    Securing jobs for pay, good pay, health & life insurance, decent benefits, increased worker safety, paid tuition for those going to trade schools and colleges that offer technical/trade education, etc. How’s that for starters?

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
23. Brian McGlinchey says:
    

    I will attempt to respond to the various questions posed and then afford folks the opportunity to respond accordingly.

    - With respect to “Bosses” and the democracy to unions and our endorsement of legislative proposals and candidates for public office, our union encourages workers to be actively engaged in political action, creates mechanisms like our political captains program and labor education courses to make that happen, and create a high level of input from members.

    - As to the question of whether or not unions represent the public good or use our influence to protect our narrow interests or engage in somehow underhanded dealings - that is absurd. We proudly represent our members interests which is JOBS. Without JOBS, there is no money to purchase private property. By definition, the word “labor” is a hard verb.

    - I respect Senator Venables and his conviction on his issue as well as those associated with this cause, however, I believe responsible use of eminent domain is a valuable tool for redevelopment.

    - As to the request for what labor or I have done personally, I have not been uniquely responsible alone for the gains that labor has made in the First State, however, we now have an increased marrket share in the construction industry, increased outreach to people of color and women for jobs in the skilled trades, we passed responsible contracting ordinances in New Castle County to help consumers and taxpayers alike, assisted in establishing collective bargaining for our public employees, secured congressional commitments for the Employee Free Choice Act, fostered a renewed sense of hope for workers to organize by funding a strong organizing program which employs full time Delaware based union organizers, secured passage of bills such as the increase in the minimum wage and fighting for universal health care and pension protections for all Delawareans.

    - The letter I co-signed is in black and white and stands on it’s own merits. My advocacy work in the General Assembly is not part of any “shadow government:, rather, we are simply advocating our viewpoint in a moral and responsible and effective manner.

    Finally, we hold no monopoly on the truth or virtue, but we represent a constituency that needs representation. And jobs.

    July 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
24. DanaGarrett says:
    

    Bullshit,

    Any similar words for the Chamber of Commerce? They lobbied for the veto too. Got any messages for them or do you only get a hard on when you attack working people?

    July 1st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
25. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    “Tyler, is this true for the Chamber as well?”

    Absolutely, Dana. I don’t side with any special interests. It doesn’t matter that conventional spin dictates that my political affiliation should make me sympathetic to whatever the CoC wants. I’m not.

    I don’t really differentiate amongst money-driven interests, whether corporations, labor unions, industries, whatever. When you get into justifying and rationalizing the narrow and undue influence of any of them exert, especially as a matter of a “balance of interests” (such as business vs. labor), you are pretty much compromised. (I don’t mean you personally, but whoever).

    If we had a government primarily driven by public service ethic above all, the special interest lobbies wouldn’t be dangerous. But we don’t, and they are.

    July 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
26. GWB says:
    

    Brian. If Tyler ” considers you a great friend ”

    Then get out of town as fast as you can!

    July 1st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
27. WHAT says:
    

    GWB,
    Why does Brian need to vacate town.
    Is that a threat from you towards any of Tyler’s great friends?

    Because other wise I am sure that Brian can determine for himself how to respond to Tyler’s extension of friendship.
    What did you mean?

    July 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
28. Andy says:
    

    I find it Odd that all over the Blogs that there is no hesitation to whip the Unions to pieces but its seems to be akin to pulling teath to have you folks admit to the role the the Chamber played in this issue and all issues that they have an interest in
    Something doesn’t go the way some would like boom those dirty crooked Union guys and no one else they did it yet usually as it is here no word about anyone else like the COC until people like Dana start pulling a few teath and then reluntantly folks admit yea those guys played a small part but those big bad Union guys screwed us
    Its shame that folks who claim to be such progressive people think that the first amemdment is only cool when there the ones using it for their viewpoints (Tyler Nixon, Al Massetti among others)
    Regardless of how you feel about an issue and whom you may agree or disagree with this is Amereica and everyone is entitled to their opinon and has a right to voice to their representatives whether indiviuals or interest groups
    No Matter what cloud some of you folks may reside on Interest groups whether representing business, labor enviormental racial or what ever type of group that you can think of will always be a part of the political process
    I think some here need a refresher in 9th grade civics

    July 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
29. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    LOL, thanks for the cryptic remark, W.

    Brian and I have known each other for upwards of 20 years, back to being at Archmere together in the late 80’s.

    We may cross paths from different sides of the aisle but Brian knows it is not in the slightest bit personal, and neither of us has ever taken it that way. Brian is a gentleman through and through (with a lot more restraint than I certainly have).

    So whatever the GWB comment meant (perhaps along the lines of “you’re either with us or your our enemy”), I am certain Brian knows exactly what I meant.

    He knows our personal friendship doesn’t require our being in political unison, and likewise any political opposition between us will never diminish our friendship.

    July 1st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
30. Mike Matthews says:
    

    Andy,

    I have NEVER ruled out the CC’s duplicity on this matter. I’m reporting what I was told by two sources that in the cases of Cloutier and Connor that they were specifically targeted by the unions. That was the story here.

    July 1st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
31. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    Andy - for whatever role the Chamber or any business interests of any kind played in killing this property rights protection legislation, they are totally piss-poor anti-citizen as far as I’m concerned and deserve to be excoriated roundly.

    I just don’t happen to believe that the Chamber, at least, was anything but a sideline last-minute player, if at all.

    If I thought the Chamber was as much a responsible party (and direct beneficiary) as union interests are in the killing of SB 245 I would certainly not hesitate to rip them equally.

    I think the developer(s) behind this killing are nothing but greedy self-serving manipulators. They get no free pass from me, but then they don’t cloak themselves as heroes to the common man, like their labor partners-in-crime on this underhanded deal.

    If you really believe that I am somehow one of these “unions bad, business good” types, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.

    July 1st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
32. Question says:
    

    Question: Was there an official memo that went out to all union supporters to try and distract from the union thuggery by pointing to the involvement of the weak-as-shit Chamber of Commerce? Or are you all conveniently acting independently of each other in trying to blame the CC?

    July 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 am
33. Intercourse says:
    

    The union defense here appears to be that someone else, somewhere, once upon a time, also did something not in the interest of the citizens of Delaware. They sound like the bathroom lurking GOP Evangelist Senator from the midwest declaiming “Other people have sucked a lot more dick than me.”

    Bottom line? Mattthews rules.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 am
34. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “Question: Was there an official memo that went out to all union supporters to try and distract from the union thuggery by pointing to the involvement of the weak-as-shit Chamber of Commerce?”

    Hey Punk, your old lady got the memo and put on a demonstration for us. Only a sense of delicacy and a modicum of regard for your feelings keeps me from telling you what she did w/ it.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
35. Mike Matthews says:
    

    lol

    July 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
36. DanaGarrett says:
    

    Ah, the metaphors we choose

    “Other people have sucked a lot more dick than me.”

    The voice experience.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
37. Al Mascitti says:
    

    Dana: You’ve made the point about the Chamber of Commerce quite well; why must others parrot it?

    Let’s look at the record, though: Democrats represent the unions, Republicans the Chamber. Six Democrats did what the unions wanted, three Republicans did what the Chamber wanted. Is it OK if I devote twice as much time to pointing out the unions’ role?

    Seriously, though, I think the public understands quite well that business interests are pro-development. What it rarely realizes is that the unions work hand-in-glove with development interests, leaving the unaffiliated members of the public with no representation.

    Brian: I have no problem with your lobbying, so long as you make clear you are working for your members and nobody else. My problem with unions in government is that they represent only 1 in 9 workers but claim to represent all of us. As Tyler noted, from the unaffiliated viewpoint, you are just another special interest. When you join with special interests across the aisle, the public gets no seat at the table.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
38. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “Six Democrats did what the unions wanted, three Republicans did what the Chamber wanted. Is it OK if I devote twice as much time to pointing out the unions’ role?”

    That’s 37.5% of the Dems in the Senate and 46% for the Repubs. If math determines the amount of coverage, I’d say you got it flipped.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
39. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “Seriously, though, I think the public understands quite well that business interests are pro-development.”

    As far as I’m concerned, the real story is how the CoC went against the the SMALL business owners like Ed O. only to support the BIG developers. There’s no inherent contradiction in the laborers union lobbying for what would result in more construction jobs. That’s what lobbyists for the Laborers union do.

    People should ask Ed O. what he thinks of the CoC looking after his interests. I have.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
40. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    I can imagine Ed’s feelings. I share them wholeheartedly.

    But only when a CoC endorsement and its full support suddenly means the difference between being elected or not, we’ll talk about relative influence in the political process.

    When CoC support means raw manpower, sent from ranks of its member businesses to flood an election district in which most or all have no connection, we’ll talk.

    Either way, labor unions and/or CoC influence, like with ED, very much amount to the tyranny of a small minority.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
41. RSmitty says:
    

    Uh, Dana, your math is backwards. 3 of 8 Repubs is 37.5% and 6 of 13 D is 46.2% Depending how count OakTree Adams, it was really 6 of 12 (50%) or 7 of 13 (53.8%), since he refused to support it.

    We can all go on and on about who influenced whom, but there is obviously more than one culprit involved here. The bigger point is, developers ruled this lot, and I believe anyone else that would benefit played a similar role.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
42. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “But only when a CoC endorsement and its full support suddenly means the difference between being elected or not”

    Money to campaigns directly from the CoC and separately from its clientele no longer help to determine campaigns?

    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
43. Andy says:
    

    Tyler Nixon says:

    “Organized labor as a special interest in this state has way too much political influence and their efforts always seem to serve their narrow interests at the expense of the the public interest.”

    Tyler also said
    If you really believe that I am somehow one of these “unions bad, business good” types, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
44. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    And I stand by both.

    One statement is very specific about the scope of the labor lobby’s negative influence over Delaware’s political and legislative processes.

    The other is “unions bad”.

    I fail to see the correlation. Unless of course you believe all unions consist of are political heavies and lobbyists, working the system in their favor.

    I don’t. Do you?

    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
45. Andy says:
    

    The bottom line on my previous post was that alot folks on several of these blogs always want to condemn Unions for representing their constituency and offer opinions that Unions should have their 1st amendment rights restricted
    The Movie where Michael Douglas played the president and Annette Bennig played his girl freind had a line by Michael Douglas that “America aint easy” and it aint You have to have strong leadership willing to bring all sides together and come up with the best possible solution for all interests Unfortunately we have too little if that in this day and age

    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
46. Al Mascitti says:
    

    Dana: The Chamber doesn’t claim to speak for me. Unions do.

    McGlinchey’s failure to repeat the usual union pablum about representing all workers shows it’s an important distinction to make. As long as they don’t claim to speak for anyone other than their members, I have no problem with their lobbying.

    As for the Chamber, you’re sadly off-point here. There were and are two major players pushing for the city’s position: Buccini-Pollin (a Chamber member, I’m sure) and the unions. I’ve heard nothing about the Chamber twisting any arms, but I’ve heard about plenty of arm-twisting from those two players.

    “The other guys did it too” is the lamest excuse in the book. It carries no intellectual weight and never will.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
47. Andy says:
    

    Organized labor as a special interest in this state has way too much political influence and their efforts always seem to serve their narrow interests at the expense of the the public interest.”
    I fail to see the correlation. Unless of course you believe all unions consist of are political heavies and lobbyists, working the system in their favor.

    Tyler
    Sounds like you do
    What about Sunday bus service now I admit my Union benefited but so will the public and members of
    my Union along with other organizations played a part in trying to convince others that this was a good thing
    I just tired of anytime something doesn’t go your way the first words are the Unions did it eventhough there are other players it always seems like you and Al among others fail to mention them and that the Unon’s right to lobby should be restricted in some way When you make a statement like this “Organized labor as a special interest in this state has way too much political influence” In my eyes you want those rights restricted and I have a problem with that
    If people don’t agree fine maybe they should talk and see if they can find common ground
    Did any of you ask Brian what it would take for the laborers to support this Bill? Obviously some of you knew early on that they were against it Maybe if a few questions were asked by members of the public who were knowledgable of these things something could have gotten done

    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
48. G Rex says:
    

    Liz: “sounds like the current Gang of 4 at IPOD.”

    I nailed it! I totally nailed it!

    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
49. G Rex says:
    

    …by which I mean I posted this over at DelLib on June 27th:

    “So any bets on when Liz Allen starts referring to the nomination “convention” as the Gang of Four?”

    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
50. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    So Andy, you are saying we should go hunt down all the union lobbyists for their blessings for civil rights legislation, when they don’t come out with any public position on it until one of them signs a letter asking it be vetoed?

    As far as what I think unions are, or blaming them anytime something goes wrong…show me where I have done such a thing anywhere? Would you prefer we all turn a blind eye to the plain fact that the organized labor lobby was the linchpin for killing this civil rights protection legislation that so many people spent so much time and effort working to secure over the last year?

    I am getting slightly perturbed at having my position against the actions of what, to me, is just another special interest lobby, being characterized as some larger “anti-union” position.

    Some of you really invite the opposition you get when you insult people’s intelligence by trying to have us believe that you are all about the working man’s interests as a general statement, when it is all about the union membership’s interests…even if this comes at the expense of the rest of us working citizens.

    You all are a special interest lobby, but as far as that goes you are no more special than any other group looking to work the system to serve your narrow interests. Please don’t expect the rest of us to take a pass on our civil rights just because it is inconvenient to the monetary and political agendas of the organized labor lobby.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
51. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “Dana: The Chamber doesn’t claim to speak for me. Unions do.”

    The Chamber constantly frames its positions in terms looking out for jobs and the consumers’ interests. I assume you work and consume.

    “McGlinchey’s failure to repeat the usual union pablum about representing all workers shows it’s an important distinction to make.”

    You certainly get a lot of mileage out of what a person doesn’t say. It creates a nice large empty space for you to invent and pronounce on what they “really” were thinking and what was motivating them. I suppose that’s why logicians named the fallacy arguing from silence.

    “As long as they don’t claim to speak for anyone other than their members, I have no problem with their lobbying.”

    Apparently you don’t believe that because you just argued that Brian M. was holding it back and speaking for you was conspicuous by its absence. A nice Catch 22–either way the union guy catches hell.

    “As for the Chamber, you’re sadly off-point here. There were and are two major players pushing for the city’s position: Buccini-Pollin (a Chamber member, I’m sure) and the unions. I’ve heard nothing about the Chamber twisting any arms, but I’ve heard about plenty of arm-twisting from those two players.”

    Well, clearly you were out of the loop on this one and you’ve been winging it all along. If you were in the loop, at a minimum you would have included the city in w/ the list of major players. They lived at Leg Hall.

    “The other guys did it too” is the lamest excuse in the book. It carries no intellectual weight and never will.’

    Oh, how nice. Now he’s caricaturing my argument. For the rest of you (Al already knows my real argument, this bit of smoke from him notwithstanding) my real point is the coverage in the assignment of blame and how influence is weighted and why and their bases in reality. You know, something not knee-jerk.

    July 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
52. Andy says:
    

    So Andy, you are saying we should go hunt down all the union lobbyists for their blessings for civil rights legislation, when they don’t come out with any public position on it until one of them signs a letter asking it be vetoed?

    No not all isues but on this one considering your personal involvement speaking on the radio and participating in the various events I think you knew who all of the players were and the fact that you have political plans for office I would think that maybe this type of effort might have been taken
    And as far as any percieved anti Union position on your part I am just using your words

    July 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 am
53. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    I see, so as a citizen activist I am obliged to spend my own resources and time hunting down well-paid union lobbyists to make sure I know they oppose a piece of civil rights legislation and find sympathy for their position?

    Andy - I got news for you. I have NEVER viewed the protection of fundamental civil rights against government abuse as something subject to approval from, or compromise with, ANY narrow interest groups.

    Despite what you seem to think, Delawareans shouldn’t have to get approval from your organized labor lobby in order to protect and secure their constitutional rights. Yes, the right to property is just as important as the first amendment rights that all of us exercised, except the organized labor lobby…until the 11th hour.

    Personally I find it disgusting and outrageous that it has even reached this point, that we have to organize rallies and spend our personal time and energy, outside of working to earn our own livings, just to sleep soundly knowing that our right to property does not exist at the whim of special interests and their greedy government whores.

    As far as running for office….well maybe if the Exec Director of the AFL-CIO ever uttered a single public word about eminent domain, I might have known more about organized labor’s opposition to this.

    Even so, it wouldn’t have changed my mind a bit, nor theirs. They wanted what they wanted, and the were willing to use whatever means available to get their way…and they did. It’s just that simple.

    So please spare me that all of these citizens who joined together to pass this civil rights legislation somehow should bend over backwards for opponents who, behind the scenes, were prepared to stab them in the back…and did.

    I always hear organized labor lobbyists throwing around that trite phrase about “wanting a seat at the table”. Well, lots of people were at the table this time but organized labor only showed up at the end to let us know they were the dealer for the table, and the table was closed.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 am
54. Al Mascitti says:
    

    Dana: You’re the one who isn’t connecting the dots. The story here is who the chief arm-twisters are: Buccini-Pollin. They’re the ones who scared both the city and the unions into carrying their water. I suspect you, too, have heard how. I’m not yet at liberty to say what I heard. If you are, by all means post it here.

    Look, I expect the city to cave in — B-P is the only outfit willing to spend money in the city. But you’re going to have to explain for me why the unions in this state never call management’s bluff.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
55. Another Mike says:
    

    Brian, I haven’t read a post from anyone who says that eminent domain is not a valuable tool or that it should be eliminated in any circumstance. SB 245 would not have wiped out eminent domain; it would have restricted it to public use.

    What the city of Wilmington is threatening to do, and what this bill would have addressed, is taking private property and giving it to private interests for development. Eminent domain historically has been used for roads, parks, schools, i.e., things that benefit everyone, not a private company.

    Regarding Lt. Gov. Carney’s interview yesterday on WDEL, I was very disappointed in his answers. He began every answer with something about supporting the rights of property owners, but he never once answered Loudell’s question of whether he would have signed SB 245. I think it’s fair to say he would have done the same as RAM. Carney did not point out the difference between taking property for public use and private use. He made it sound as if this bill would have stopped any use of eminent domain in Delaware in any circumstance, which it most certainly would not have done.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
56. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “The story here is who the chief arm-twisters are: Buccini-Pollin. They’re the ones who scared both the city and the unions into carrying their water. I suspect you, too, have heard how. I’m not yet at liberty to say what I heard. If you are, by all means post it here.”

    You mean their transparent chess move: they either get it all or nothing. You think that it was a bluff didn’t pass notice of most observers?

    July 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
57. Hube says:
    

    Regarding Lt. Gov. Carney’s interview yesterday on WDEL, I was very disappointed in his answers. He began every answer with something about supporting the rights of property owners, but he never once answered Loudell’s question of whether he would have signed SB 245.

    My sentiments exactly. He sounded pathetic.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
58. Al Mascitti says:
    

    No, Dana, there was a specific threat made, and the union did not treat it as a bluff. Ask around.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
59. Andy says:
    

    No tyler i figured that you might have wanted to get a head start if elected on having to do just these things and who knows had you succeeded you’d get a feather in your cap againat a possible opponent but evidently your just might be one of those who isn’t ready to build coaltitions in order to get things done instead just sit on the sidelines and bitch against those that you feel screwed you
    Nom matter how you feel about this issue the Supreme Court right or wrong ruled on this now it is up to those who disagree with the scope of that ruling to some how reign it in hell I think that the court ruling sucked too
    Every once in a while when WDEL is able to be heard in the land below the ditch I have heard good things about you and your views on various issues and your name bandied about for various elective office that being said you dont know me nor I you I only know you by what I have heard and read which isn’t always the best way to get to know someone
    But guess what welcome to the REAL WORLD
    this Country was built on Compromise is basicaly runs on compromises little ones and big ones but an educated man such as yourself should know this and I am sure chasing down Brian McGlinchy would have been last thing that you would have had to do if you wanted to know what the Unions were thinking on this regardeless of how you might feel about their degree of influence I think a phone call from you would have been answered and being as wired into what going on as you people say you are I figure you would have known the Union’s position on this especially after the RAM veto
    who knows it might not have taken much to get them in your corner and of course they may have not wanted to budge But nobody will really know now will they but at least you would have made a seruious effort in engaging your opponent on this and you might have been able to act as a legislator before being elected as one

    July 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
60. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    “this Country was built on Compromise is basicaly runs on compromises little ones and big ones”

    Really now? Like the colonialists compromised with King George?

    This country was built on NOT compromising fundamental liberties, Andy.

    There is a huge difference between compromise and consensus. One involves attaining broad support for your position, the other involves yielding from it to a lesser result of what you initially stood for.

    On things like budgets, routine legislation, administration, and general governance there are always going to be compromises on details.

    But when it comes to fundamental civil rights questions, especially when the consensus is as broad as it was on this eminent domain question (notwithstanding the resistance of a few narrow monetary interests and government bullies), compromise is a dirty word.

    I really can’t keep explaining this to you over and over. You can keep trying to blur the lines as though the hardness of my position is somehow a negative, on this particular question, or reflects poorly on me for a lack of willingness to sell out my principles to people who only see $$$ in all this.

    I don’t see it that way, and I doubt many others here share your cavalier view of how civil rights are to be sorted out in our society or in our political process. You really seem intent on ignoring how organized labor sought no compromise and certainly didn’t care about a broad legislative and public consensus in favor of this legislation.

    No offense, but it is just ridiculous for you to come here and suggest that we all should have sought out organized labor’s gold ring to kiss and compromise. Sorry but the vast majority of citizens don’t give a rip what organized labor’s money interests are when they equate to our property rights being watered down to oblivion.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
61. Andy says:
    

    wasn’t SB245 billed as a “compromise piece of legislation when introduced?

    July 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
62. Andy says:
    

    By the way if I remember 9th grade civics the entire constiution was one big compromise between large and small states NOrthern and Southern and if I remember that document is the foundation on which this country was built on

    July 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
63. Andy says:
    

    No offense, but it is just ridiculous for you to come here and suggest that we all should have sought out organized labor’s gold ring to kiss and compromise
    by the way that is not what is said I just thought that maybe some one who might want to be a leader act like take the bull by the horns and ask the question and if the answer is not satisfactory then so be it
    But given the so called overwhelming support in the original vote and then RAM having the nerve to veto anyway you had to know something was up
    But the bottom line is I do not agree with wholesale eminent domain use it needs to be limited
    However I also do not agree with anyone trying to put limits on or saying that limits should be put on any individual or Groups first amemdmemt rights and that what I felt that you were driving at with your outrage with the Union’s role in this issue and what I know are Al Masetti’s feeling about that subject because he has clearly stated as such.
    You are both very influencial people in this arena and with that influence is great responsibilty. To me the Freedom of speach is aboslute. and the Supreme Court has spent 200 years defining it as you know

    I know Unions have their problems between and apathetic rank and file and weak leadership in a lot of cases is not a good mixture but hose of us who care are trying to right the ship in our own way a little at a time

    I have no hard feelings with you and I enjoyed our discussion I have learned in life that I can have disagreements with people and not bear any ill will towards them

    July 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
64. Tyler Nixon says:
    

    “I have no hard feelings with you and I enjoyed our discussion I have learned in life that I can have disagreements with people and not bear any ill will towards them”

    Likewise Andy. I am very passionate about this so I know it can sound like I am taking your remarks personally, but I’m not and I hope you don’t either.

    You (and everyone) have a fun and safe Independence Day weekend!

    July 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
65. Replace the Senators says:
    

    Andy,
    I agree with this excerpt;”I just thought that maybe some one who might want to be a leader act like take the bull by the horns and ask the question”
    Lets elect Tyler to the House, so that he can voice his opinion and that of his constituents, and not just to a special interest group.
    ===============================================
    Apparently the union representatives, run roughshod over the general interests of the whole public, just so their workers have work, and they keep their power.
    I consider what Ford said when he built his cars in Americas first factories. The CAR was to be built so that the workers can afford them. Forbid that some union member or retiree should lose their home or business, for the short time gain of a construction job.
    Honest UNION work will still exist without the arm twisting of Eminent Domain.

    I was reminded tonight, by a Union Carpenter that much of the Buccini work was done with Philadelphia Labor, and did not use Wilmington Carpenter Union Locals. So much for taking care of locals.

    July 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
66. Andy says:
    

    Except no one would bring the groups together and ask the question what would it take to get this done. That should have been the Job of the elected officials Especially Ms Henry since she was one of the no votes on the Veto There is no reason the Mr. Osbourne should have to lose his livlihood and property to profit others
    Obviously there were more players than Mr Osbourne and the Unions and little was being said about those people

    My biggest point was that I felt that people wanted to restrict the rights that are guarenteed under the first amendment

    July 4th, 2008 at 7:49 am
67. DanaGarrett says:
    

    “I was reminded tonight, by a Union Carpenter that much of the Buccini work was done with Philadelphia Labor, and did not use Wilmington Carpenter Union Locals. So much for taking care of locals. ”

    I checked into this w/ someone who knows and was told uncategorically it is untrue.

    July 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
68. Replace the Senators says:
    

    Dana,
    Very funny, Your source versus my source, so your source MUST be correct.

    My source frequently attends the Carpenter Union Meetings 626.

    But I am sure you can quote a Logical fallacy there.. would that be the “Big Dick” fallacy, that You must know more and be more powerful because your’s is larger?
    Believe what you want. Let the readers here recognize that someone here believes that Philly labor came down and took our Carpenter local’s jobs. Maybe there is a Carpenter that blogs here….
    Or someone else knows other Carpenters in 626.

    July 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
69. Al Mascitti says:
    

    I’m just wondering what project B-P threatened to pull out of Wilmington and into Chester.

    July 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Leave a Reply